The annual global climate summit came to end over the weekend, with participating nations agreeing to several new conditions in their bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The 24th conference of the parties — otherwise known as COP24 — concluded after two weeks of negotiation in Katowice, Poland. Around 25,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries participated in the summit.
As is the case every year, delegates were tasked with how to fight against climate change and reduce the world’s carbon emissions. A key part of this goal includes how to best implement the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
The biggest change to come out of COP24 is the establishment of a “rule book” that participating nations will use to report their greenhouse gas emissions and funding efforts. Additionally, the rules will allow countries to monitor the carbon reduction efforts of other governments.
The U.S. expressed some pleasure over the new agreement, believing it will force other countries to be held more accountable for their carbon emissions.
The U.S. has decried China — the world’s second-largest economy — for being the world’s largest polluter, but never seemingly facing the same level of repercussions.
“The outcome took a significant step toward holding our economic competitors accountable for reporting their emissions in a manner consistent with standards the United States has met since 1992,” read a Saturday statement from the U.S. Department of State.
However, the American government did reiterate its opposition to the Paris climate agreement, adding it will “not taking on any burdens or financial pledges in support of the Paris Agreement and will not allow climate agreements to be used as a vehicle to redistribute wealth.”
The Trump administration made its opposition to the Paris climate agreement clear, but cannot officially withdraw until 2020. In the meantime, the White House sends delegates to participate in climate change talks. The U.S. was notable in that it hosted a pro-fossil fuel forum during the summit in 2018.
While COP24 ended with encouragement for countries to do more in the fight against global warming, nothing from the two-week-long summit is binding. The lack of any major breakthroughs attracted criticism.
“In the climate emergency we’re in, slow success is no success,” Durwood Zaelke, the president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, stated. “[The rulebook] is decades too late. It should be clear that the U.N. consensus process can never produce the muscular agreement we need to meet the emergency.”
The global climate summit came after a comprehensive report from the United Nations claimed quick and drastic action is necessary to reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, or else face catastrophe.
Read more at Daily Caller
And they departed as they had arrived on their Private Leer and Gulf Stream Jets to return to their huanted Palace sit in their heated rooms and think of more ways to tax the poor
“…that the U.N. consensus process can never produce the muscular agreement…” Muscular? I can recall the era when the word “muscle” referred to the gentlemen who would ‘visit’ a storekeeper who had declined to buy ‘insurance’ from the ‘mob’. Didn’t I read the UN wanted their own army? Enforcers?
Google News offers multiple headlines declaring agreement and success at the annual climate conference. Seems to me they’re a stuck needle in a worn out 45. Same line, over and over.
The media is complicit . The IPCC writes their own glowing reviews and the sycophantic press endorses them.
Nothing.
Next question?
they have those conferences; to make their mules and parrots in the PRETEND opponent’s camp, to spread Warmist bullshit – the way it suits the Warmist. 1] to reffed to the PHONY global warming as CLIMATE 2] to insinuate that CO2 is got something to do with the global temperatures, and similar = and they have great successes.
CAN YOU PASS the Stefan’s polygraph / lie detector test: if CO2 is bad for the climate – how come is most beautiful / MILD climate 400km around Beijing, where the biggest air pollution is, BUT: is terrible / EXTREME climate in Gobi Desert, and inland Australian deserts, where is ALWAYS the BEAUTIFUL, CLEAR SKY, but hell climate??!
AND ANOTHER ONE: if you have to live naked, as you were born; without shoes, cloths and blankets and no roof = same as the animals, birds, crops and trees, survive without those artificially made things – in the place you live now: Q: how many days and nights you would have been complaining that is too hot and ‘’how many days and nights you would have complained that is too cold??!
Q#3: why is not the hottest on the Equator, in Congo, Indonesia and Ecuador; but the hottest is in Death Valley California, in Sahara and inland Australia??
Q#4: if water improves the climate; why are ALL the Warmist swindlers, against new dams, to save storm-water and IMPROVE THE CLIMATE??! B] more water on the land = LESS water in the sea, simple arithmetic. Sahara, inland Australia, lake Chad, Aral Sea and their respective surrounding areas can take lots more water, than scaring the public that glaciers can melt and bring the second flood. Q: did one concerned Warmist scientist ever; for ‘’storm-water to be saved for those places, to IMPROVE the climate, where is bad climate’’??!
Q#5: hypothetical: if the planet was getting COLDER -> would have harmed the critters living on the polar caps, because is already too cold there -/- by simple logic; the hypothetical warming would have harmed the critters, plants and animals living on the equator; because the sun is the strongest there – and any increase of heat, would have being instantly noticeable tremendous harms. Q: why is no any criminal Warmist swindler scientist in Congo, Ecuador and New Guinea, on the EQUATOR; but are divisions of them on the polar caps, where honest people don’t go, to blow the whistle on the Warmist Organised Crime (WOC)??
If you do not have any honesty to pass my test; next step will be WATERBOARDING…